misterpunch wrote:you're on shaky ground crusader - look at amir khan - he looked really good, awesome, in his first ten fights - blew everybody away! - well, blew stiffs away. how would you have assessed khan after 10 fights? ready to take on henry Armstrong? no, didn't think so. the world had to wait until decent opposition turned up. its like that in boxing. I remember Vernon Sollas in the 1970's being hailed as a future great, and he did box well, the kid, until....he got found out by lesser skilled opponents who were able to work him out.
wow! you complain that fighters from the earlier era "only threw one punch at a time" well, if one of my boys tried to throw two punches at once I'd kick him out the gym!
greb was known as the windmill - this was NOT because he hailed from Holland (he probably never heard of the place) - guess why he had that nickname? I told you crusader, you're on shaky ground
check out jim driscoll - still think those guys were crude?
you talk like the armchair champion you are. sorry, but your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny in the real world of our sport.
There are several problems with your post.
The first is that your opening paragraph rambles on as if I asserted that resumes are irrelevant. Perhaps it's due to you having poor reading comprehension, failing to read all my posts, not having a good memory, or some of each, but I already suggested that one's opposition should be considered when evaluating fights like this. Obviously opposition must be considered because as you mention, fighters can blow through one level of opposition and impress in doing so, only to flounder when their opposition gets tougher. Yet I don't think a technically competent fighter would suddenly look like a slob upon a marked jump in competition and fights are not won based on who has the better resume, so by picking Ketchel because of his supposedly stronger record you are giving no weight to how the fighters' abilities and styles compare, meaning you're assuming simply because GGG hasn't fought at a particular level that he probably wouldn't win at that level, which is no less an assumption than thinking that he'd win at that level even without fighting at it. Moreover, since my initial posts herein were directed toward the notion that GGG has no place in this type of match because he's apparently much less proven and has many questions to answer, let me reiterate that it strikes me as odd that people would reach this conclusion when they've seen hardly any footage of Ketchel's opposition in action, and ask the question of who Ketchel beat that makes this hypothetical absurd? Since you want to talk about records, a look at Ketchel's record indicates that he fought loads of novices (which GGG certainly isn't) and was still facing opponents with under ten bouts and losing records late into his career.
You then fail to grasp what I meant when I stated 'only threw one punch at a time', which surprises me given that this phrase is commonly used and understood by those in the boxing community in the manner I intended it. In that sense the phrase denotes a tendency to rarely throw combinations, and from the video I've gleaned of Ketchel and his opponent the tendency is towards single shots and the occasional two punch combination, but very little or nothing more advanced than this. While fighters can still have significant success without being combination punchers, it makes their attacks much more predictable and typically easier to cope with.
Finally, you mention certain fighters that you consider not to fit with the generalizations I've applied to old-time fighters, but keep in mind that I never suggested that all old-timers fit those trends. Nowhere in this thread will you see me suggest that EVERY old-timer was crude or that EVERY old-timer clinched frequently. You seem to think that by mentioning people such as Greb and Driscoll you've proven me wrong, but you haven't come close to doing so. By the way, I've watched Driscoll and even an apparent technical wizard from that supposedly superior day showed virtually no head or upper-body movement based on the extant footage, just like his opponents.
So I think your arguments are fairly weak but I'm not going to resort to immature name-calling. For what it's worth I've won multiple boxing titles, so I'm not simply an armchair champion and how accomplished I am has no bearing on the strength of my arguments anyway, which you should know if you have even a basic understanding of logical fallacies. My positions are based on sound logic and existing evidence, and I'm not one to unskeptically accept claims about how good certain fighters are without seeing them or their opposition for myself.
